Posted by CB on 8/12/2001, 6:42 pm

Posted by Steve B. on 6/20/2001, 11:46 am , in reply to "The dual nature" Dave, You write The Trinitarian view has no problem ending up with contradictory concepts like a "begotten God" or a "forgetful God", a "dead God" or a "schizo God". I've encountered none of these concepts except for the first in actual trinitarian doctrine. And the first concept did not originate in trinitarian doctrine but comes straight from John 1:18. In other words, trinitarian doctrine didn't “end up” with concepts like “begotten God”—that's where it started. And it started there because the concept is in the Bible. Biblical concepts like “the only begotten God” provided the starting point for trinitarian doctrine. I've come to think such doctrine provides a better explanation of these Biblical concepts than does Oneness doctrine. Further, the doctrine of the “eternal generation” of the Son is not equilavent with the teaching that Jesus is “the only begotten God.” The doctrine of eternal generation is a late addition to the Trinity, is not an essential part of it, and is not accepted by many Protestant teachers of the church. It was only one attempt of many to explain how Jesus could be referred to as “the only begotten God” and yet also be God himself. But note that, as the Chapel correctly taught, the better translation of the phrase is “the unique God.” The other phrases in your list are pejorative characterizations of trinitarian doctrine by its opponents. They aren't trinitarian concepts. They make for colorful and superficial anti-trinitarian diatribes, but they provide no help when a person gets down to deciding who the Bible really shows Jesus to be. You also write I submit that the Trinitarian view denies the true humanity of Christ. What is your definition of the “true humanity of Christ” and where does it come from? Does it require that Jesus must be human in exactly the same sense we are human, or that Jesus cannot be anything we are not? But then what do you make of the virgin birth? No human generative act took place to cause Jesus' birth. His origin was not in an ovum fertilized by the seed of a human male. If the seed by which his humanity was generated was created directly by God, his human beginning was radically different from ours and he has a human nature different from our own human nature in at least that aspect. (And the assumption here, taught at the Chapel, that this is how Jesus’ conception and birth came about has no explicit Biblical support. His conception could have occurred in some other way.) That already rules out the possibility of his being human in the exact same sense we are human, does it not? The point is, I do not think it is right to come up with our own rigid definition of what it means to be human and then say the Biblical picture of Jesus must adhere to that definition. That is backwards. We can have no ideas about the humanity of Christ that go beyond what the Bible says about it. My goal is not to simply defend either the humanity or deity of Christ—my goal is to find out what the Bible says about each and then adhere to that as closely as possible in my doctrine; so far I have found that the Trinity does this better than Oneness. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by Keith on 6/20/2001, 4:17 pm , in reply to "Re: The dual nature" In other words Steve it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. There are not absolutes in the Bible when it comes to God or Jesus? Jesus' humanity, the Trinity is explained by Biblical language not fully understood by human concepts? When the Bible used singular pronouns to describe God, there is nothing absolute about that? God says I am God alone I know of no other. "I" doesn't really mean "I" in the sense we know it? Or Deut 6:4 doesn't mean one in the true singular sense of the number one? I will hold onto clear straightforward easy-for-a-child-to-understand language. The Bible interprets itself in light of clear language and straightforward Scriptures, rather than taking 2 or 3 Scriptures and interpreting the rest of the Bible as I've seen you do. Phil 2:6 seems to be the corner stone of your theology, which can easily be interpreted in light of the clear absolute singularness of God shown throughout the Bible. ---------- Posted by Cliff Bisch on 6/20/2001, 5:05 pm , in reply to "Re: The dual nature" Matt 1:18 birth was in this way...the greek word for "birth" here means origin or beginning. It seems to state that Christ began here. As far as His nature being a redefined "man", that is what I oppose in Trinitarian thinking all along...and the Mormons do it also...redefining a word in a way that the Bible makes no mention of. Man means man. One means one. Conceive means conceive. Born means born. Other clear scripture will have to define or shade the meanings. Leave Trinitarian non-Biblical words out of the discussion and you cannot explain the Trinity. If you only use the words that God has written...how can you describe God's nature? If the resurrected Christ, glorified is in heaven...and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus....and we know the fullness of God dwells in Him...and he is the same yesterday, today and forever...then, if there was a "second person of the Trinity"...and he emptied himself and became man...then, he is permanently stuck in manhood...and there are only 2 left in the Trinity...For the Trinity to be what they say it is....he can't stay as man. But Yahweh changes not. Arrrgh. The Trinity drives me nuts, but so do all leftover Catholic doctrines. ---------- Posted by Clifff Bisch on 6/20/2001, 5:41 pm , in reply to "Re: The dual nature" Also, I don't believe the fully God, fully man statement, because the Bible doesn't say that. The shading is a bit different. It calls Christ a man. Period...In whom the fullness of God dwelt. This means a man was born and God dwelt in that temple...such that He moved out (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?), after God and man were both pierced (Zech 12:10) so the man could pay the price and die....and be resurrected by God. But a clear resolution of only begotten god is still open as God has no beginning, unless this is a statement in combination as only begotten, God....which he was. The manifest image and presence of God, and still begotten of Mary.